quote:Originally posted by Tomme73:quote:Originally posted by JuanHunt:quote:Originally posted by Tomme73:
Is it joowahn or wahn? Do you believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If so, what happened to them before the UN-approved inspection? If not, how do you define "weapons of mass destruction" and why would Bush's top advisors say there were WMD's in Iraq?
These are sincere questions. Please answer them honestly.
There is no evidence that Saddam had a functional WMD weapons system. A few hundred artillery rounds found buried and leaking does not constitute a legitimate threat. Saddam bluffed because he was more afraid of Iran than of the UN...he misunderestimated BushII. The USA went to Iraq on a nation building mission to secure mideast oil and increase the security of Israel. All along, the real threat has been Iran, a country which has long range missiles and access to nukes from North Korea/China.
Well, you didn't exactly answer my questions. Hussein DID have WMD's and used a variety on his own people. US troops DID find evidence of weapons manufacturing in Iraq. Certain US troops received information from Iraqis detailing the three countries where Iraq's WMD's were sent. Just because liberal-run, main-stream media refuses to report all the truth all the time, you don't have to ignore it as well.
Your questions are far too specific for me to answer. The WMDs that Sadam used on the Kurds in the 1980's may have been all he had. If Saddam had operable WMD weapons and delivery systems in 2003, he would have used them.
No information made available to the public can be considered absolutely accurate, complete or current. The Wikileaks info had alot of intel on the WMD question, and is probably the most meaningful.
Trying to obscure the lack of info by claiming a conspiracy by the liberal main stream media does not lend your point of view any credability.